An investigation Uvalde city leaders ordered into the Robb Elementary School shooting has cleared local police officers of wrongdoing, but still acknowledged a series of failures during the response.

UVALDE, Texas (AP) — An investigation Uvalde city leaders ordered into the Robb Elementary School shooting cleared local police officers of wrongdoing Thursday, despite acknowledging a series of rippling failures during the fumbled response to the 2022 classroom attack that left 19 children and two teachers dead.

Several family members of victims walked out in anger midway though a presentation that portrayed Uvalde Police Department officers of acting swiftly and appropriately, in contrast to scathing and sweeping past reports that faulted police at every level.

“You said they did it in good faith. You call that good faith? They stood there 77 minutes,” said Kimberly Mata-Rubio, whose daughter was among those killed in the attack, after the presentation ended.

Another person in the crowd screamed, “Cowards!”

Jesse Prado, an Austin-based investigator and former police detective who made the report for the Uvalde City Council on Thursday, described several failures by responding local, state and federal officers at the scene that day: communication problems, poor training for live shooter situations, lack of available equipment and delays on breaching the classroom.

“There were problems all day long with communication and lack of it. The officers had no way of knowing what was being planned, what was being said,” Prado said. “If they would have had a ballistic shield, it would have been enough to get them to the door.”

  • Snot FlickermanEnglish
    2•9 months ago

    Pednatic: giving too much attention to formal rules or small details

    Via Cambridge Dictionary.

    Sorry, but quibbling about the correct terminology for what someone is called after a primary election firmly falls under “too much attention to small details,” when that wasn’t the point being made.

    The original point that was being made was about how clearly a lot of people are happy to vote in the same people who failed their children. That point is proven whether he was fully elected or just a candidate, because it means a non-insignificant portion of the population voted for him.

    We’re in a derail about whether the person talking about it is using the right terminology, and we’ve lost the plot of the original point which is that a lot of US citizens are happy to vote for people who fail them again and again and again. Which was proven by him being a nominee/candidate, he didn’t need to be fully elected to prove that point.

    The inability to see that using the right terminology actually doesn’t change the point is what makes it pedantic.

    Pedantic. I rest my fucking case, man.